Introduction
Discussion
Habermas has been concerned with the development and decline of public sphere right from his earliest works. The public sphere was defined by Habermas as ‘a realm of social life in which something approaching public opinion can be founded’ (Habermas, 1989, p2). In public sphere, citizens discuss without hindrance, that is, with assured freedom of assembly and association and freedom to express and publish their opinions regarding issues of common interest. Political life is discussed openly in this realm of public sphere; debates go on following standards of critical reason and not by appeal to traditional dogmas and authorities. This paper assesses the role of contemporary mass media in the process of public sphere.
The Emergence of Public Sphere
Habermas considers 18th century as the period attributed to the emergence of public sphere. Divisions between state and civil society grew as a result of expansion of market economies. The opposition to traditional and hierarchical forms of feudal authority were nurtured by these centres of debates. The anticipation of public sphere was to replace the rule of tradition with the rule of reason.
Habermas argues that public spheres emerged out of specific development of bourgeois society. The majority of private individuals, left out from the then dominant political institutions, became concerned about the government of society. This happened because life reproduction in the wake of developing market economy had grown beyond the bounds of private domestic authority. The public sphere was promoted and shaped by these individuals by maintaining many newspapers possible to further debate about the nature of authority. Because of this, newspapers transformed from mere institutions for news publications into bearers and leaders of public opinion.
These were weapons of party politics during this period. A large number of newspapers and journals joined for freedom struggles, public opinion, and public sphere principle until the establishment of open and accountable authority structure.
The general interest was thought to be represented by public sphere; although those involved in it were generally elites, that is, educated and wealthy. The participants, referred to as the bourgeoisie were reasoning public; they sought to change society into a sphere of private autonomy devoid of political interference because they were armed with what they took to be knowledge of general interest. In addition, they aimed to change state into an authority restricted to a limited number of functions and supervised by the public.
Habermas Works on Bourgeois Public Sphere
According to Habermas interpretation, bourgeois public sphere appeared around 1700s (Calhoun, 1992, p.181). The aim of this interpretation was to arbitrate private concerns of individuals to the requirements and concerns of social life. This was applied to overcome private interests and opinions to discover common interests and to arrive at consensus in society. The public sphere included organs of information and political debate, such as press, parliament, social places, and others where social and political deliberations occurred (Calhoun, 1992, p.236). This provided individuals and groups with opportunity to shape.
Habermas gave a historical reflection on the rise and decline of public sphere. The public sphere was developed by Habermas out of feudal system that did not permit the principle of open public discussion on issues of universal interests. Habermas postulates that public sphere existed in classical Greece; however, it assumed a distinct role in Europe in the 17th and 18 Century, along with the spread of capitalism (Calhoun, 1992, p.236). During this period, the state turned to be a sphere of public authority that had a legitimate control to the use of violence. The contemporary state could be clearely separated from civil society both judicially and institutionally. Civil society as distinct from state included the domain of goods production and exchange, as well as private family (Bignel, J., 2002. p. 212)
The domain of public sphere emerged in between the realm of public authority and civil society. The main objective of the public sphere was to provide people with opportunity to critically reflect upon themselves and the state’s practices. Initially, public sphere grew out of coffee houses and salons where bourgeoisie nobles and intellectual male members converged to discuss literature. According to Habermas, their discussions retained certain immanence despite the fact that there open ended discussions were always based upon exclusion practices.
Habermas posits that these on going discussions were sustained through three main reasons: one, the social intercourse that later moved from literary to political critique established a social space; where better arguments had authority and cold be asserted against the status quo; two, social debate areas that were not open under feudalism lost fame that had been offered by church and judiciary (Habermas, 1989, p.172).
These social debates became increasingly scrutinised through discussions that did not consider the status of participants; and lastly, Habermas argues that conversations that happened across Europe in coffee houses and salons between 1680 and 1730 were both inclusive as well as exclusive. Whereas the opportunity to participate actively in dialogue was overtly restrictive, Habermas claims that conversations amounted to a mouthpiece for the public. He argued that, although the public remained small, the universality principle started to be recognised. People who satisfied the qualification requirements of being rational, male and wealthy could present themselves through active involvement in public sphere (Habermas, 1989, p.179).
Habermas claims through the principle of publicity that, public application of reason was superior to its private utilization. He maintains that, truth pursuit through inter-subjective dimension that reflected upon both civil society and government, held out distinct chances for the reformation of the asymmetrical relation of force. Therefore, hegemonic positions were maintained by the dominant male capitalist class through exclusion practices, while offering simultaneously the cultural grounds for critique (Habermas, 1989, p.180).
The decline and destruction of the bourgeois public sphere was caused by the very social forces which established it. The institutionalised dialogues in salons and coffee houses were replaced as a result of communication being increasingly organised through large commercial establishments. This change is best seen through the print media industry. Originally, newspaper business was organised as a small handicraft business, only later to be faced with competing and divergent viewpoints and perception. This period was observed by Habermas as a form of literary journalism. At this point, the commercial purpose of the news receded into the background (Habermas, 1989, p.182).
The Emergence of Commercial Capitalism
Since the end of the liberal era which Habermas Dates from early 1870s, emergence of commercial capitalism has resulted to press commercialisation. Specialised journalists displaced literary form of representation. These specialised journalists were governed by private interests of proprietors. The search for exposure of political domination by use of reason was replaced by imposition of an ideological consensus through mechanisms of economic and political manipulation (Hall, 2000, p.56).
The contemporary institutionalisation of private communicative individuals coming into conversation in public sphere emphasised a growing separation of public and private life. From then on commercial culture was consumed in private, requiring no further debate or discussion. In contrast with print culture of discursive bourgeois salons and coffee houses, much of contemporary media such as, television, radios, and film, do not permit the possibility of talking back and participating. According to Stevenson (2002, p. 66), just like contemporary mass culture is received in atomised contexts, so technical development of modern cultural forms has been embraced for society based on mobile privatisation.
With this culture of privatisation, Habermas adds that there has been a corresponding trivialisation of cultural products with the aim of dominating the economic market (Stevenson, 2002, p.67). For Habermas, markets operations are assessed as a dual and contradictory process that has both affects that emancipate and dominate. For instance, small stratums of readers are offered with access to high quality literature in the book market.
Nevertheless, the reduction of the qualification requirements has meant that literature has had to be accommodated to a mass leisure culture, which demands relaxation and ease of reception or understanding. These cultural mass forms have a specifically ideological function. Contemporary cultural forms integrate subjects into a depoliticised culture which bypass the public sphere where claims of righteousness could be discussed (Hahn, 2000, p. 259).
Habermas Works on the Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere during Peace Time
Habermas published a contribution to the theory of democracy that generated a sensation in the staid intellectual universe of post war Germany in 1962 (Habermas, 1989, p.161). His contribution appeared thirteen years after reestablishment of liberal democracy in Germany. Habermas works on the Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere was a landmark that focused on those features of contemporary democracy (Habermas, 1992, p.89).
He argued that contemporary democracy exhibited numerous troublesome tendencies, such as: dangerous fusion of state and society, unpredicted by classical liberal theory, had led in the decline of the very core of liberal democratic politics; a public sphere based on ideal of free and unforced discussion (Habermas, 1989, p.87).
World War II experience made a lasting impact on the works of Habermas, specifically the holocaust (Kwiet, 2004, p.260). He had to respond to very painful questions; how was it possible that the intellectual credentials of Kant or Marx, in which the themes of rationality and political realization of freedom predominate, could have been a fertile ground for the rise of a barbaric politician Adolf Hitler and the philosophy of authoritarianism? Why was there no resistance against this development from Germans? How was it possible for Nazism to develop within the tenets or logic of modernity? His response to these questions came down to nothing less than a careful and comprehensive study of the trajectory of modern reason (Hahn, p.286).
In the period of the 1950s, Habermas became convinced that spiritual division and alienation of modern era is of a socio rational rather than a metaphysical nature (Habermas, 1987, p.vii). He became keen on post war Germany’s efforts to become a democratic state. In addition, he was also concerned with broader intellectual issue of the project of modern life from the view point of distorted realization of reason (Habermas, 1986, p.96). This keenness with modern paradox, possible loss of freedom in face of technical rational progress, pushed Habermas into contact with Frankfurt school.
Literary public sphere emerged, thus contributing to literary and art criticism. In this process the relationship between public and the art critic is one of communicative reciprocity. In his writings, Habermas (1989, p.259) posits:
In principle everyone is called upon and had a right to make a free judgment as long as he participated in public discussion, bought a book, acquired a seat in a concert or theatre, or visited an art exhibition. But in the conflict of judgments he has not to shut his ears to convincing arguments; instead he had to rid himself of his prejudices. With the removal of the barrier that representative publicity had erected between laymen and initiates, special qualifications…became in principle irrelevant…Hence, if the public acknowledged no one as privileged, it did not recognize experts. They were permitted and were supposed to educate the public, but only inasmuch as they convinced through arguments and could not themselves be corrected by better arguments.
It should be noted that task of critics is to expose the dogma and fashionable opinions in public, his or her expertise held only as far as it was not contradicted by a better argument. Rational aesthetic debates in salons, coffee houses, newspapers, and the educational role of the art critic were important as they contributed to institutionalization of literary public sphere as some form of template of political public sphere. According to Habermas (1989, p.50):
The relation between the author, work and public changed. They became intimate mutual relations between privatized individuals who were psychologically interested in what was human, in self knowledge, and in empathy.
Calhoun (1992, p.10-11) posits that, rational critical discourse about literary objects of mutual concern was shifted over directly into political discussion, which paved way for political public sphere. The normative ideal in all these practices contend that there is an essential humanness involved that economic or other interests cannot erase.
Habermas (1989, p.49-50) describes certain institutions or physical places such as salons and coffee houses where literary and political matters could be openly and publicly discussed. Parliament is the obvious example of an open deliberative institution. Salons and coffee houses were and are physical places where people could meet one another in a city in order to deliberate on certain pressing issues of the day.
The normative ideals of the public sphere became institutionalized in this process for three reasons: one, deliberations in these institutions disregarded status. The point was that a person’s official prestige, power and economic status are absent in principle in these institutions. This is to say that laws of the market and state were suspended: two, rational argument was the arbiter of any issue. In essence therefore, literary, political, and philosophical works were no longer represented by the church, court of authorities (Melton, 2001, p.116).
Private Citizens for whom cultural products became accessible were able to interpret aesthetical and philosophical issues independently; and lastly, the public sphere was viewed as a universal auditorium. Individuals who are able to get cultural materials such as; books, journals, magazines, and others had opportunity to insist in participating in cultural debates. The public sphere did not transform into the forum of a power clique; rather, was viewed as part of more inclusive public comprising all private citizens who could participate in an independent way in a critical discussion as a result of being educated private owners (Habermas, 1989, p.36).
These practices and institutions enabled state to be in touch with societal needs (Habermas, 1989, p.46). However, this social evolution could only occur based on a new economic order. This new order was termed as capitalism. Capitalism made crucial contribution to public sphere through institutionalization of a new and stronger sense of privacy and free control of productive property. Capitalism was reflected in Europe in codification of civil law, where basic private freedoms were guaranteed.
Therefore, fundamental parity among individuals was thus established, corresponding to that among owners of commodities in the market and educated people in public sphere. Though not all people were legal subjects, all legal subjects were joined in a more or less undifferentiated class of people. The extension of these notions into the doctrine of laissez faire and even free trade among nations brought the development of civil society as private sphere emancipated from public authority to its fullest extent (White, 1989, p.106).
The Deterioration of the Public sphere
The deterioration of public sphere is interpreted by Habermas since the last part of the 19th century, as a shift to a public driven use. This change took place at the moment that the classic model of liberal competing capitalism was transforming into monopolistic capitalism of cartels and protectionism. The classic function of public opinion, such as, the general debate of general interests was then on interfered by states and other interest groups interventions. Including the institutions of the legislature could not evade this erosion of public sphere (Habermas, 1989, p.205). Habermas (1989, p. 164) says:
Discussions, now a’ business’, becomes formalized; presentation of positions and counter positions is bound to a certain prearranged rules of the game, consensus about the subject matter is made largely superfluous by that concerning form.
There was change in relation between the public and private spheres and their relation with government. Government and society which were once distinct became interlocked, leading to the refeudalisation of the public sphere (Habermas, 1989, p.142). Thus, public sphere was transformed from a forum for critical and rational debate to an instrument for manipulation of public discourse where bureaucratic and economic interests use advertising, marketing and public relations to create a social engineering of voter behavior and cultural consumption (Hall, 2000, p.236).
At this historical point, enlightenment and cultural emancipation of masses project became endangered. The public sphere was therefore transformed from a forum for critical and rational debate to an instrument for manipulation of discourse by powerful bureaucratic and economical interests. The decline of public sphere is described by Habermas into a minority of high art on one hand and a large mass of art consumers, that is, cultural industry on the other (Hall, 2000, p.236).
The advent of new technologies resulting to lower book prices may not have enhanced cultural life. The mass media such as press, radio, and later television fast turned to be commercial instruments of advertisers. These new forms of media communicate directly to the consumer by ignoring the idea of a rational discourse between participants in a critical public sphere (Habermas, 1989, p.90). In his comments on the arrival of the new media, Habermas (1989, p.170) say:
With the arrival of the new media the form of communication as such has changed; they have had an impact, therefore, more penetrating…than was even possible with the press…They draw the eyes and the ears of their public under their spell but at the same time, by taking away its distance, place it under tutelage, which is to say they deprive it of the opportunity to say something and disagree. The critical discussion of a reading public tends to give way to exchanges about tastes and preferences between consumers…
Contemporary mass media and a new style of appropriation made it impossible for works of literature and politics to be appropriated through the critical discourse of literary publications. The form of participation is significantly altered with the spread of access of the mass media. Habermas (1989, p.166) posits that:
Serious involvement with culture produces facility, while the consumption of mass culture leaves no lasting trace; it affords a kind of experience which is not cumulative but regressive.
Habermas in this statement refers both de-politicization of the public sphere and its impoverishment by the removal of critical discourse.
Habermas and the Public Sphere and Contemporary Media during War Time
Habermas’ work on postmodernism conceives the news media as a public sphere. Politically, Habermas regards access to information as a precondition for political knowledge and action, and establishment of citizenship. In his analysis of the role of the media in civil society, his concept of public sphere would be a suggestive commencing point for considerations of the role of the media in relation to public participation in culture in general and political culture in particular. He explains that, the mandate of public sphere is to merge public or civil society with state interests. In addition, it provides space for the rational debate which would establish a consensus on public affairs (Habermas, 1989, p.167).
Habermas assessment was based on the Frankfurt Schools’ critique of contemporary public life. Contemporary public life was considered to involve denigration of mass society and mass media communications; and thus, its status as an ideal opposes an existing public culture which was viewed as inadequate. The 18th century bourgeois public sphere was not a representative whole. It formed a basis of hegemony (Calhoun, 1992, p.138).
The concept of the public sphere was elaborated by Habermas on the basis of this culture which did not include the working class, women, and others. Taking into account these fundamental exclusions, the concept failed to discuss alternative public forums, such as radical groupings or supporters of new political systems. However, Habermas support for the quest of ideal public sphere, made it possible for the circulation of information internationally.
Bignel (20042 p.156) describes interviews conducted on ten families in Bombay, watching channel 1 news on Doordarshan, the Indian state television channel as an example. It was found that 57% of the news stories were about domestic news, 43% were about foreign news; with foreign news in over 50% of the cases concerning events in neighbouring Asian countries such as Pakistan. For Indian viewers, the news is tied up with their identities as citizens, their stance towards the news bearing within it a stance towards the state.
Of the stories recorded on the news day, about 35% consisted reports on the activities of state, increasing to 60%if the stories about foreign relations and terrorism are included. The viewers’ relationship with television news items elided into relationships with the nation-state as they perceived it through the news items. The samples of the households were found to identify the state as an ideal representative, which could be challenged either by outside forces, such as, terrorist activities or by internal threats, for instance, corrupt politicians to its effective functioning. According to Habermas (Bignel, 2002, p.156):
When the relationship of the ‘other’ to the state was one of resistance or antagonism these viewers would identify with the state. Conversely, when the interests of the ‘other’ and the state were seen to coalesce, the viewers’ resistance could be directed towards both.
The control of television by state and the preponderance of news, together with viewers’ acceptance of hegemonic authority, militated in favour of the role of the medium in Indian culture as a public sphere in which consensual identities of citizens, state and media could support each other.
Examples of The Process of Public Sphere during Peace and Wartimes
Habermas (1989, p.380) explains how crisis in certain situations generally neglected civil society actors. Habermas is interested with how poorly resourced and institutionally powerless groups and movements can deter the functioning of the public sphere dominated by the interests of the economically and politically powerful. This is a necessary question for understanding how social change is realised in complex, mediated societies.
It is also important for assessing democratisation prospects. Habermas accounts have a certain plausibility that needs to be supplemented by considering how groups can penetrate the confines of the public sphere. He seeks to describe these in terms of self-understanding of the mass media in liberal democratic societies as objective watch dogs of society. This was exemplified in the 2003 Iraq conflict.
In weeks leading to war on Iraq, opinion polls suggested a divided public opinion. The public supporting war on Iraq to remove Saddam from power varied from 30% to 40% throughout the six months (Kellner, 2003, p.13). Support for the war with Iraq increased significantly for two conditions: one, the media portrayed Iraq to possess weapons of mass destruction (WMD), or two, the war had to be sanctioned by the United Nations security council. Nevertheless, even with the evidence that Saddam possessed WMD, a quarter of the British population still disapproved the war. The media advanced three key arguments to the case of war against Iraq: that Iraq had and might employ the WMD; the brutality of Saddam Hussein’s regime; and the notion that Iraqi people supported the war.
The British media’s wartime coverage was fairly sympathetic to the government’s case. This was clearly manifested in different ways, notably; the exclusion of other issues and focus on the war progress, the tendency to portray the people of Iraq a liberated rather than invaded, deliberate failure to question the presence of WMDs, and the focus on decadence and brutality of Saddam regime without providing this evidence in a broader historical perspective. This sympathetic coverage encouraged some hitherto unconvinced public to support the war. The public opinion poll during the war showed increase in support from 54% from the beginning to 63% in the period following the destruction of Saddam’s monument in Baghdad (Kellner, 2003, p.13).
Commercial radio and propaganda interacted with and shaped decisive transition in the US during World War II. As a medium, radio gave an invaluable and indispensable assistance for successful change during the war. Understanding the role of radio during war time and propaganda assists us in acknowledging the differences between the periods that preceded and succeeded the World War II. The public sphere was a much contested arena in the 1930s, in which both the influence of state and alternative political and cultural visions were on the increase (Horten, 2003, p.4). A part from corporate visions, other visions in the US was relegated to the banner of culture and politics during the post war period (Horten, 2003, p.2003).
The radio culture during war time offered numerous examples of opposing trends that undermined mainstream ideas and assumptions. Radio medium was shaped always by different, often conflicting, impulses. During the wartime, neither the popular culture nor politics became single dimensional. It creates the resurgence of a dominant trend, the strong reinforcement of corporate hegemony narrative consolidated during the war (Horten, 2003, p.5).
In the US, radio news was much essential in shaping public opinion due to its unique qualities as a medium of information and because it was not tainted by earlier propaganda legacies. Radio propaganda ran by state had become suspect at the turn of the decade. By the time America joined World War II, the tactics and narrative devices of renewed propaganda efforts seemed too familiar (Horten, 2003, p.5).
Criticisms of Habermas Public Sphere Concept
The cultural changes and processes outlined by Habermas have led to a re-feudalisation of public sphere. Whereas once publicity meant the exposure of domination through the application of reason, the public sphere is now subsumed into a stage managed by political theatre. Contemporary media cultures are characterised by the progressive privatisation and the trivialisation and the glamorisation of the question of public concern and interest. The hijacking of the communicative question by monopolistic concerns seemingly converts citizens into consumers and politicians into media icons protected from rational interrogation (Calhoun, 1992, p.138).
In the account of contemporary culture, Habermas writings present inadequate despite the sympathetic arguments it presents. Habermas’ notion of the re-feudalisation of the public sphere while sustaining a certain critical purchase remains fart too sweeping to adequately capture the operation of modern mediated cultures. His contention that the society of the spectacle has replaced rational public sphere oriented towards claims to righteousness considerably overstates the case.
Habermas and the public sphere make us understand the wider aspects of information technology. The public sphere is denuded from within by an attack on its public service functions. The public sphere has also been affected from envelopment by a more general development of packaging information. Here, the emergence of contemporary media consultant as the spin doctor, and related practices in contemporary political affairs is put into consideration. The explosive development in means of persuading people, much in evidence in contemporary politics is connected to this. Public sphere also extends deep into the area of consumption. Furthermore, there is massive expansion of entertainment (Boyd-Barret, 1985, p.92).
The enormous amounts of increased information in the contemporary age are of dubious value. Undoubtedly, there is more information about today, but the quality of such information is suspect to the extreme. The spread of the means and of consciousness of purpose, of persuading people is one of the most striking features of the twentieth century, especially of the post war world. According to observation by Calhoun (1992), “information management is fundamental to the administrative coherence of modern government (p.37).
Habermas conceives the media and public sphere to function outside the actual political institutional system. It’s mainly conceived as a site of discussion and not as the epicentre of political organisation, struggle, and change. The media in western democracies is intertwined intricately within state and economy in ways that Habermas disagrees with. Habermas does not see how the democratic process can be expanded by utilisation of media to enlighten to educate and organise groups with divergent views (White, 1989, p.83).
The system of broadcasting in Europe encompassed both political and public spheres. The state financed and controlled broadcasting organisations which attempted to promote the national culture, education, and information. In the United States, public sphere was virtually controlled influential private organisations substituting the popular entertainment for display of national culture, education and information (Hahn, 2004, p.62).
Habermas glaringly limits democracy to the sphere of discussion within the civil society and life world. He does not include the necessary presuppositions for democratic discussion and argumentation which calls for informed and intellectually capable citizens. It important to note that putting emphasis on education and communication media will create an informed public. An informed public is eligible in terms of being allowed to participate in democratic conversations (Hahn, 2004, p.65).
The media does a crucial role of informing and developing citizens capable of actively involved in democratic politics. A society can suffer a crisis of democracy if the media is not vigilant in checking abuses, and not adequately informing the public (Boyd-Barret, 1985, p.108).
Globalization, Modern Technologies, and Modern Public Sphere
In contemporary society, there is emerging expansion and redefinition of public sphere involving new areas of information, political struggle, discussion, competition, and organization that includes the broadcasting media and cyberspace as well as the daily face to face interactions. The public sphere as conceived by Habermas needs to be changed due to the emergence of new computer technologies with multi media (Bignel, 2002, p. 76).
All electronic media used to question the state authority both in systems under both state and private organizations. New public spheres of debates, discussion, and information have been created through radio, television, and other electronic media. They can be utilized to develop communication politics and modern media projects (Bignel, 2002, p.78).
The internet has created new public spheres for political intervention. Broadcast media like radio, television, and computers have created new public spheres and room for information, debate, and participation. These factors comprise both the possibility to invigorate democracy and enhance the spread of critical and progressive ideas. In addition, they also create new possibilities of for manipulation, social control, perpetuation of conservative positions, and intensification of the differences between the rich and the poor. Technical competences are necessary for the public to participate effectively in these new spheres; that is, they need to understand new technologies (Hahn, 2004, p. 259-262).
Political agitations in the future may embrace these new technologies at all levels. However, the media, computer, and information technologies already mediate politics today. This will increasingly remain in the future. Therefore, people interested in joining politics in future must appreciate the vital role of the emerging public spheres (Hahn, 2004, p.262).
The basic demand of democratic politics requires new technology and media to be used for public interest. The public should not be manipulated in any way by the electronic media in democratic politics; instead they must be used to teach and educate the masses. The new public spheres will enlighten people on how to apply the new technologies and media. In the process they will be able to explain their own experiences and interests. Overall, these raise the level of democratic debates and diversity (Hahn, 2004, p.263).
Future democracy depends on the current discussions over the application of new technology and new media. These current debates are diverse in nature and may include; discussions about new media and new computer technology regulatory organisations, discussions on future accessibility to new media and emerging technologies, future media accountability and responsibility and finding appropriate culture that creates personal freedom, and in the future (Hahn, 2004, p.264).
Boyd-Barret (1995) writes:
the spread of media culture and computer technologies concentrate on the importance of new technologies and the need for public intervention in debates over the future of media culture and communications in the information highways and entertainment the future (p.112).
Current technological revolution creates new public spheres. For it to succeed, it needs need new democratic strategies that will allow the public to get involved in politics that affects them (Bignel, 2002, p.83).
Conclusion
Habermas analyses concentrated on the nature and structural changes of public sphere and there functions within the contemporary society. However, this should be expanded to consider technological revolution and restructuring of capitalism globally that is happening currently. In addition, revisits the critical theory of society and democratic politics considering these developments. Habermas works provides vital theoretical resources to satisfy necessary tasks of the contemporary period. Habermas Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere offers the entry point for critical theory and radical democracy. His works can resourcefully advance understanding and transforming contemporary society democratically (Robert, 2004, p.45).
References
Bignel, J., 2002. Postmodern Media Culture. London: Greenwood Publishing.
Boyd-Barret, O, Newbold, C., 1995. Approaches to Media. London: Arnold.
Calhoun, C., 1992. Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Habermas, J., 1992. Further Reflections on the Public Sphere. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Haberman, J., 1989. The Structural transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hahn, L., 2000. Perspectives on Habermas. London: open Court Publishers.
Hall, M, Montag, W., 2000. Masses, Classes, and the Public Sphere. London: Verso.
Horten, G., 2003. Radio goes to War. California: University of California Press.
Kellner, P., 2003. Iraq-The Public and The War: A Report on YouGovernment Opinion Surveys During and After the Conflict. Web.
Kwiet, K., 2004. Contemporary Responses to Holocaust. London: Greenwood Publishing.
Melton, J., 2001. The Rise of Public Enlightenment in Europe. London: SAGE.
Robert, J, & Crossley, N., 2004. After Habermas: New perspectives on the Public Sphere. Oxford: Blackwell.
White, S., 1989. The Recent Works of Haberman. Cambridge: MIT Press.